History is riddled with instances of civil disobedience. Most would agree that, for some issues, it is required to change a law that is unjust. Even in a society that established a democracy as far back as its ideological conception, some issues seem to be only resolvable through decisive acts of insubordination. A valid point that is often times raised is: what is the point of a democracy if some issues have to be solved through civil disobedience? More specifically, this point is the centerpiece of Lewis H. Van Dusen, Jr.’s essay titled “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy.” However, civil disobedience is required when a society, leader, or government is oppressing the demographic demanding change, or is participating in something
…show more content…
Van Dusen's argument holds no water because of his blatant disregard for great leaders of civil disobedience and contradictory structure. Van Dusen’s essay is constructed of four parts. The first section attempts to dismiss Martin Luther King, Jr. as a civil disobedient. Van Dusen might have succeeded in manufacturing an argument had it not been almost completely incoherent. There is one paragraph specifically where he will make a statement in one sentence then completely contradict it in another. The sentence, “But the conscientious law breaking of Socrates, Ghandi, Thoreau is to be distinguished from the conscientious law testing of Martin Luther King, Jr., who was not a civil disobedient” is immediately followed by “The civil disobedient withholds taxes or violates state laws knowing he is legally wrong, but believing he is morally right” (Van Dusen 189). He boldly claims that King is not a civil disobedient then proceeds to describe the classification of a civil disobedient, which all the historical figures he previously mentioned fall under, including King. Van Dusen also tries to suggest that King had a better reason for practicing civil disobedience in the sentence …show more content…
This is supported by multiple instances of civil disobedience being used incorrectly or being misinterpreted. For example, a demonstration that is “a denial of rights to others” or protesters who transform into rioters. Van Dusen describes a civil disobedient again with “The civil disobedient, while deliberately violating a law shows an oblique respect for the law by voluntarily submitting to its sanctions” (Van Dusen 191) His point is structurally sound, but this essay was written in 1969. To put it mildly, the protesters or their demonstrations against the Vietnam War were not of the highest intellectual level, on the contrary, the protesters of our time aren’t much better, but ours are not a bunch of kids under the influence of drugs and trying to take down “The
Van Dusen's argument holds no water because of his blatant disregard for great leaders of civil disobedience and contradictory structure. Van Dusen’s essay is constructed of four parts. The first section attempts to dismiss Martin Luther King, Jr. as a civil disobedient. Van Dusen might have succeeded in manufacturing an argument had it not been almost completely incoherent. There is one paragraph specifically where he will make a statement in one sentence then completely contradict it in another. The sentence, “But the conscientious law breaking of Socrates, Ghandi, Thoreau is to be distinguished from the conscientious law testing of Martin Luther King, Jr., who was not a civil disobedient” is immediately followed by “The civil disobedient withholds taxes or violates state laws knowing he is legally wrong, but believing he is morally right” (Van Dusen 189). He boldly claims that King is not a civil disobedient then proceeds to describe the classification of a civil disobedient, which all the historical figures he previously mentioned fall under, including King. Van Dusen also tries to suggest that King had a better reason for practicing civil disobedience in the sentence …show more content…
This is supported by multiple instances of civil disobedience being used incorrectly or being misinterpreted. For example, a demonstration that is “a denial of rights to others” or protesters who transform into rioters. Van Dusen describes a civil disobedient again with “The civil disobedient, while deliberately violating a law shows an oblique respect for the law by voluntarily submitting to its sanctions” (Van Dusen 191) His point is structurally sound, but this essay was written in 1969. To put it mildly, the protesters or their demonstrations against the Vietnam War were not of the highest intellectual level, on the contrary, the protesters of our time aren’t much better, but ours are not a bunch of kids under the influence of drugs and trying to take down “The